2018 (1) TMI 927 - AT - Income Tax

Applicability of sec 50C - DR contends that AO had rightly invoked Section 50C before making the impugned short term capital gains addition - income derived from sale agricultural land - Held that - We find no merit in the instant argument. It has come on record that the assessee s share in the land in question is only to the extent of 1/10th. The department itself has assessed the remaining two co-sharers namely Smt. Kalaben N. Patel (8%) and Shri Devang Dineshbhai Shah(10%) to have derived business income from plotting the relevant capital asset in question. There is no distinction on facts pointed out at the Revenue s behest in assessee s case vis- -vis above two remaining co-sharers. This tribunal in case of Jayantibhai C. Patel (2011 (12) TMI 691 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) admittedly holds that income derived from sale agricultural land after its conversion to a non-agricultural parcel amounts to an adventure in the nature of business and trade resulting in business income. It has further come on record that the instant assessee had entered into an MOU(supra) with the developer in question. We affirm CIT(A) s findings under challenge treating the assessee to have derived business income instead of capital gains. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute that the Section 50C of the Act does not apply in the instant case. We therefore see no reason to accept Revenue s grievance pleaded in the instant appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the transaction of land purchase and sale should be treated as short-term capital gains or business income.
2. The applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. The initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
4. The charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of Transaction as Short-term Capital Gains or Business Income:

The Assessing Officer (A.O.) treated the transaction as short-term capital gains and invoked Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the stamp duty valuation. However, the CIT(A) reversed this action, considering the appellant as a facilitator for Navratna Group. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant's role was limited to purchasing agricultural land on behalf of Navratna Group, which could not purchase such land directly due to legal constraints. The appellant was to receive a facilitation fee of ?15,000 per conveyance. The CIT(A) found that the A.O. had accepted the MOU and the nature of transactions in the cases of other co-owners, which supported the appellant's claim of being a facilitator. The CIT(A) concluded that the transactions should be treated as business income, not capital gains, and directed the deletion of the addition of ?36,06,948. However, the CIT(A) added ?15,000 as business income for the facilitation fee.

2. Applicability of Section 50C:

The A.O. invoked Section 50C, which deals with the valuation of capital assets based on stamp duty. The CIT(A) found that the A.O. did not apply Section 50C in the cases of other co-owners, and the nature of the transactions indicated a business activity rather than a capital asset sale. The CIT(A) directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 50C, as the transactions were treated as business income.

3. Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):

The CIT(A) addressed the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), which deals with the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the CIT(A) granted relief by treating the transactions as business income, the issue of penalty became consequential. The CIT(A) allowed this ground, implying that the penalty should not be initiated.

4. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D:

The CIT(A) also addressed the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D, which are mandatory provisions for the levy of interest on delayed payments of tax. The CIT(A) directed the A.O. to levy interest after giving effect to the relief granted and the enhancement of income. This ground was treated as partly allowed.

Conclusion:

The tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, treating the appellant's income from the land transactions as business income instead of capital gains. The tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument for invoking Section 50C and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed.